[WS:] But have not they already done so by adopting the Euro? Countries that were concerned about the sovereignty of their central bank opted out of the Eurozone, no? My point was that Eurocapitalists would have to swallow the bitter pill of a redistributive mechanism for the same reason they had to swallow the bitter pill of welfare state some 60 years ago - because state administrators, fearing a breakdown of the institutional order, would force that pill down their throats. Of course, this is only a conjecture, as good as everyone else's, but this conjecture had some historical precedents.
In any case, I am convinced that Eurolabor's best weapon against the neo-liberal onslaught is the state - as it was in the past, provided of course that they can exert the same pressure on it as they did in the past.
I am less sure if the same applies to the US though, because the state is a very different animal here, much more amenable to the demands of capital (to acknowledge Shane's point.)
Wojtek
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2010-11-10, at 11:32 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> > Marv: "to lead the workers to state power through forms of political
> class
> > struggle ranging from demonstrations to armed insurrection, its highest
> > form."
> >
> > [WS:] Now, be serious. You do not really believe that armed insurrection
> is
> > even remotely an option in the EU or the US, do you?
>
> Oh, abolutely. You clearly haven't read my polemic against Comrade Cox who,
> like yourself, denies that an armed insurrection on the agenda, or that the
> US left is in any kind of position to lead it. I will have no truck with
> this kind of pessimism of the spirit!
>
> > The main point of my
> > posting was that the way to go is not a direct action but an
> institutional
> > solution, such as a "modest proposal" by Varoufakis - which in my opinion
> > has a chance of getting state support to stave off a breakdown, even if
> the
> > elites oppose it. Do you have an opinion on it?
>
>
> I haven't had time to read it, but I note Shane has said V's "modest
> proposal" is for an elected central bank. If this is so, V is dreaming in
> technicolour, or rather double technicolour. Not only would it never be
> elected, but national states and central banks would not surrender their
> sovereignity to it.
>
> The latest Economist, which touches on this issue ("Beyond Bretton Woods
> 2") cites Barry Eichengreen's forthcoming book Exorbitant Privilege:
>
> “No global government… means no global central bank, which means no global
> currency. Full stop.”
>
> I will look at V's article to see whether he is being done an injustice,
> and, if so, will happily retract my comment above.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>